Re: #516 note about WWW-A parsing potentially misleading

On 2013-10-30 15:39, Michael Sweet wrote:
> Julian,
> This might be a case of what-is-defined vs. what-is-used, but in my experience user agents/clients don't support multiple WWW-Authenticate headers and often do not look past the first challenge in the value.

Multiple challenges in one header field: 
<> (fail for 
everyone except Safari and Konqueror)

Multiple header field instances: 
<> (seems to 
work interoperably)

> Given that the current p1-messaging draft says that senders MUST NOT repeat headers (section 3.2.2) and that WWW-Authenticate is not listed as an exception like Set-Cookie, I think it would be appropriate/safe to drop the "or if more than one WWW-Authenticate header field is provided" part in p7-auth.


"A sender MUST NOT generate multiple header fields with the same field 
name in a message unless either the entire field value for that header 
field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., #(values)] or the 
header field is a well-known exception (as noted below)."

So WWW-Authenticate does not need to be listed as exception because it 
*does* use the list syntax.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 14:50:55 UTC